It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)New Gaming Options: Follow-up Survey(519 posts)(519 posts)
(519 posts)
Pages:
1
5
10
15
19
20
21
22
23
25
30
35
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 15, 2013
We (still) want to hear from you!

We recently asked you guys for feedback based on some potential games that we may be able to sign in the future. The results were pretty clear--and we will be sharing them with you all soon--but we did want to ask you a single follow-up question with an actual real-world game example. One of the games that we would like to add to our catalog is Planetary Annihilation. This is an RTS with many modern gaming features, and we figured we'd use it as our test example.

<iframe width="590" height="332" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xpze54xgqtg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Planetary Annihilation is distinctive for the following:

- Multiplayer and skirmish focused gameplay; there is no story-based single-player campaign, but AI skirmish matches provide a great single player experience.
- Optional persistent online features such as scoreboards, social features, achievements, and the online multiplayer campaign - a persistent galaxy-wide war; an account with the developer's online service is required in order to use these features.
- No activation, unique codes, or third-party accounts are required for single-player play or, LAN/direct connection multiplayer.
- A unique key is required for Internet multiplayer, and an account with the developer's service is only required for the persistent online features.

Now, that you know about the game's specifics, here's our question:
Post edited April 15, 2013 by G-Doc
Posted April 15, 2013
If I sound like a reactionary, then it is probably because I am. But I do not want any tool by which the publisher controls me after the point of purchase here at GOG. Online passes and third party accounts and essentially variants of DRM.

The key word here is Certainty. When I buy a game anywhere, I want to be certain I can play it wherever and whenever I want to. GOG is one of the few places where I don't have to worry about whether or not I can play a game I purchased whenever I install crap on a new computer or something.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, I will admit that this particular case is not that heinous since it allows for single-player and LAN games without worry. But where then is the bloody point of needing an online pass for online multiplayer? Are all servers run at developer/publisher expense in a game that supports LAN games?

The most important thing I can say is that I should not ever have to worry about bullshit in a game I purchase off of GOG. In the end, allowing this still puts pressure on me to verify that I get what I pay for without worrying about extra crap.
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
TheEnigmaticT:
I woke up this morning with a rather particularly bad mood, did not properly read the survey, was not thinking clearly, and answered No and put in some harsh comment you guys don't deserve. So, my apology and please disregard my survey answer.
Posted April 15, 2013
I answered the poll, but only with the expectation that question #2 was going to be, "Why did you answer yes/no?". I felt the reason for our answer was just if not more important.

Edit: Just read another response prior to mine which leads me to believe some folks were asked why? and I want to explicitly state that I only had a single question without an option to clarify why I was answering the way I did.
Post edited April 15, 2013 by deoren
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
GOG.com: - No activation, unique codes, or third-party accounts are required for single-player play or, LAN/direct connection multiplayer.
That's the crux of it. You can have a sign-in persistent online whatever; I accept that in order to play on your server then your server has to exist.

But I should be able to enjoy the features of the game which don't depend on the publisher's server well after they've gone out of business.
Posted April 15, 2013
I really like the game, but I am a bit bothered that this game still requires a unique key for persistent online features. Although, to be honest, I do not actually game online, the online feature is of little importance to me.

The purpose of G.O.G. is to game in the most simplest way possible. No D.R.M., no clients, no unique codes, and no hassles. I feel that I should just be able to purchase the game from G.O.G., and be able to register with the developer's website without any keys or pass codes.

Like I said earlier, I do not game online... As long as the game has a single player campaign, a decent story, and nice graphics, as well as Linux support, that I am a happy customer. This is why I buy from G.O.G., as a loyal customer, I want them to be the voice of the customer. That message? "The D.R.M. drama has got to end!"
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
deoren: Edit: Just read another response prior to mine which leads me to believe some folks were asked why? and I want to explicitly state that I only had a single question without an option to clarify why I was answering the way I did.
Some folks (like me) said it here anyways : )
Posted April 15, 2013
I voted no.

My expectation is that all GOG games will be eventually available to their purchasers in a format that will continue to deliver its core functionality if the developer and publisher go out of business tomorrow. This is (part of) what "no DRM" means.

The core functionality of this game is competitive multiplayer over the internet. That functionality is dependent on the publisher/developer, both to authenticate a unique key and to host servers for significant aspects of the gameplay. The fact that there is single-player and LAN content is an ancillary feature; you would not expect the game to sell strongly if it only included those single and LAN elements.

It therefore does not fit the current GOG brand.
GOG's welcome to sell this stuff, but it should do so through a clear and distinctive sub-brand or sub-site, not mix it in with the regular catalogue. Clarity about what I'm buying is a key reason I buy from GOG instead of Steam where the option exists.

Another reason to incentivise developers to build their games in such a way that they can be sold on GOG. There is no reason this game couldn't have been developed, with all the same features, in a GOG friendly way.
Post edited April 15, 2013 by GregT_314
Posted April 15, 2013
I voted yes, but only since Multiplayer is also aviable via LAN and direct connection. If it just had a singleplayer vs. AI and all the important aspects are online, working with drm on company servers only, i would have voted no. Basically, if all important aspects of a game work well after the company creating it no longer exists, i'm ok with that.
Post edited April 15, 2013 by kirell
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
deoren: I answered the poll, but only with the expectation that question #2 was going to be, "Why did you answer yes/no?". I felt the reason for our answer was just if not more important.

Edit: Just read another response prior to mine which leads me to believe some folks were asked why? and I want to explicitly state that I only had a single question without an option to clarify why I was answering the way I did.
I guess you answered yes.
I answered no and got your expected question #2.
Posted April 15, 2013
Frankly, I think people are blowing the idea of these new gaming options out of proportion.

I don't want DRM as much as the next guy, but I at least want parity with what Steam offers (i.e. one-time activations, achievements, GOG.com multiplayer frameworks that do not in any way constitute DRM, etc.). That game looks really fun, so it'd be a real shame if the extreme anti-DRM ppl on this forum were to not allow this to be sold on GOG.com (or an affiliate site if they want to, but GOG.com has a very specific branding that I don't think would transition over to another site that offers such content very well). I'd rather buy such a game here than on Steam any day because I know GOG's legendary customer service will carry the day!
Posted April 15, 2013
I prefer servers run by end users for as long as a game has a fan base, not company servers that will get the plug pulled on them once they are deemed no longer profitable. I think any multiplayer game like this ought to offer tools to run our own servers. If they want to have official servers, fine, but let us run our own too.
Posted April 15, 2013
When I imagine GOG, I imagine a place where (community mods aside) I can get everything I need for a great game. I like the Multiplayer and Skirmish focused game-play: what was Civ if not a big skirmish. No Activation is a given: I expect that on all GOG games. However, without the outside servers, I feel that I'm not getting the whole game as it was designed to be played: multiplayer "galaxy-wide war."

It wouldn't be the end of the world to have this game. It's a borderline case for me. However, if all new games you offer include these extraneous party requirements, I'd wonder what happened to the words of Civilization, of Tie Fighter, of Half Life, and of FTL. Part of Galactic Civilization's game play was submitting AI logs to the "Multiverse." I hope this feature is recognised by GOG, but, if not, I'd feel like I was sold 95% of a game. My worry is that, even though GOG can cooperate with all those 95% games that need a third party to be 100% games, GOG will outlive the third party. Then GOG will be selling "19/20th Good Old Games".
Posted April 15, 2013
In my laziness I originally selected no, being want for sources to cite for my reasoning saw this all important line:
No activation, unique codes, or third-party accounts are required for single-player play or, LAN/direct connection multiplayer.
Special emphasis on: LAN/direct connection multiplayer
I think Blizzard's original Starcraft is the perfect example for how this can and should work: Battle.net requires an account to play online. A fair requirement, since you're using their resources to play online. However, you can just as easily play on ladders such as ICCUP, or even host a server to play with your friends over everything from Hamachi to GameRanger. So long as such alternatives are well in place and easy to access I have absolutely no qualms with it.

As for social features, so long as they have absolutely no effect on the core of gameplay or setting and do not detract from the former in any way I have no issue with them, though I likely will not partake.

If either of the former rules (my cardinal rules) are broken, I will not hesitate to pirate such a game, as the cracked version will no doubt offer a fuller experience that I can better enjoy with the people enjoy.

If this wall of text provides even a modicum of clarity for anyone, then it will have been worth it.
Post edited April 15, 2013 by TheSpartan
Posted April 16, 2013
Are these results going to be shared on the site, or at an unannounced summer conference maybe :P?
Posted April 16, 2013
avatar
TheSpartan: In my laziness I originally selected no, being want for sources to cite for my reasoning saw this all important line:
No activation, unique codes, or third-party accounts are required for single-player play or, LAN/direct connection multiplayer.
Special emphasis on: LAN/direct connection multiplayer
I think Blizzard's original Starcraft is the perfect example for how this can and should work: Battle.net requires an account to play online. A fair requirement, since you're using their resources to play online. However, you can just as easily play on ladders such as ICCUP, or even host a server to play with your friends over everything from Hamachi to GameRanger. So long as such alternatives are well in place and easy to access I have absolutely no qualms with it.

As for social features, so long as they have absolutely no effect on the core of gameplay or setting and do not detract from the former in any way I have no issue with them, though I likely will not partake.

If either of the former rules (my cardinal rules) are broken, I will not hesitate to pirate such a game, as the cracked version will no doubt offer a fuller experience that I can better enjoy with the people enjoy.

If this wall of text provides even a modicum of clarity for anyone, then it will have been worth it.
Yep, well put, I'd also add that the second offering in the SC series (much as I have enjoyed it) is a clear example of what not to do with regards to social features and DRM etc.
I'll play the rest of the SC games because frankly I'm interested in the story and the game play is good, but the new DRM methods Blizz is using mean that once SC is done I won't even look at another one of their titles (D3 for example is already dead to me despite having loved the series).

100% agree that the options offered by the original Starcraft are a solid example of how to host a multiplayer focused game without excessive heavy handedness or DRM (in its present form it doesn't even have a CD key last I installed it).
Pages:
1
5
10
15
19
20
21
22
23
25
30
35
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)New Gaming Options: Follow-up Survey(519 posts)(519 posts)
(519 posts)